This I regret is modern reality, if you get paid by government (I think the RNR comes into this category) you have to adopt the terminaolgy and structure they lay down. In the CS such a position would of course be additional as would the staff required to support said individual, how do you think they find jobs for those who get moved on in other efficiency savings.

KPIs have been kicking around in the RNR for a few years, although in my experience they were usually filled in by the most relevant officer, rather than having an officer for all of them.

Along with the 'Balanced Scorecard', KPIs are no longer quite in vogue with management consultants and the like, but the MOD tends to lag a half-decade or so behind big business when it comes to this kind of utterly pointless waste of everybody's time and money.

As an aside, I recommend David Craig's "Plundering the Public Sector" as an introduction to the great deal of damage that has been done and continues to be done to the public services, including the MOD.

I think it fair to say that if we hadn't listened to McKinsey and chums, we could have bought all those T45s we wanted and lots more besides.

KPIs have been kicking around in the RNR for a few years, although in my experience they were usually filled in by the most relevant officer, rather than having an officer for all of them.

Along with the 'Balanced Scorecard', KPIs are no longer quite in vogue with management consultants and the like, but the MOD tends to lag a half-decade or so behind big business when it comes to this kind of utterly pointless waste of everybody's time and money.

As an aside, I recommend David Craig's "Plundering the Public Sector" as an introduction to the great deal of damage that has been done and continues to be done to the public services, including the MOD.

I think it fair to say that if we hadn't listened to McKinsey and chums, we could have bought all those T45s we wanted and lots more besides.

Click to expand...

Of course these techniques are no longer favoured by the consultants, they have a new bag of snake oil to offer now.

The fundamental problem is the Maggie spotyted the fact that there were no real ways to measure the efficiency or effectiveness of most public employees. Since then successive governments have been floundering around trying to find an answer. Off course consultants will always give you an answer but if you failed to ask the right question the answer is crap.

This problem of asking the right question is at the root of almost all government inspired cock ups. Take PFI, it works OK, but for it to work you do need to specify exactly what you expect for your money, and all to often the buyer doesn't get that bit right. Industry had the same problem with outsourcing but soon learnt how to sort it out and get the specs correect. Procurement is the same, if you start out with a crap estimate and a spec that needs constant updating it is going to cost a lot more than something where the requirement is well defined and there are no changes, changes waste money, never save money.

The question is - what are his terms of reference and what does he do? If its something sensible like ensuring that the sub objectives of the unit - such as "recruit 100% of requirement", "get X% to achieve bounty", "100% of unit to do RNRFT" are met and that he works out why they're not doing them then that does make some sense.

as an organisation we are very good at setting targets and forgetting about them - how many times have I heard "recruitment & retention focus" as a priority, but we never seem to follow up. If we're serious about this then there could be some value in it.

Specific â€“ Objectives should specify what they want to achieve.
Measurable â€“ You should be able to measure whether you are meeting the objectives or not.
Achievable - Are the objectives you set, achievable and attainable?
Realistic â€“ Can you realistically achieve the objectives with the resources you have?
Time â€“ When do you want to achieve the set objectives?

Specific â€“ Objectives should specify what they want to achieve.
Measurable â€“ You should be able to measure whether you are meeting the objectives or not.
Achievable - Are the objectives you set, achievable and attainable?
Realistic â€“ Can you realistically achieve the objectives with the resources you have?
Time â€“ When do you want to achieve the set objectives?

Click to expand...

I am not sure whether SMART is the right place to start, all to often one finds target which meet the SMART criteria but do not in reality indicate whether the group being measured is getting better or worse at it's job.

At work I am basically measured on margin ie how much do I conntribute to the company overheads and profit, and cash, how quickly to I get the money in. Now I agree such measurements are not perhaps the most appropriate for an RNR unit, but you need to choose measures that really show how you are meeting your strategic objectives. Of course if the overall objective is wooly then any measure of how well you are doing will equally be rather meaningless. For example if you neet your recruitment target that is not much value if you have no way of converting recruits into the corret types of trained men/women

you need to choose measures that really show how you are meeting your strategic objectives. Of course if the overall objective is woolly then any measure of how well you are doing will equally be rather meaningless. For example if you neet your recruitment target that is not much value if you have no way of converting recruits into the correct types of trained men/women

Click to expand...

Absolutely spot on.

The mentality seems to be: If we can measure it, we can set targets. Only problem is that it doesn't always work like that, nor is it always appropriate.

The mentality seems to be: If we can measure it, we can set targets. Only problem is that it doesn't always work like that, nor is it always appropriate.

Click to expand...

I'd characterise it as we need targets, what can we easily measure.

In the RNR I don't see much strategic guidance from on high about what is, and is not, important. We get bland statements which turn into meaningless Command Aims like recruit, retain. RTUs are directionless as the focus has moved towards the branches.

Objectives are a good thing, if they're thought through it demonstrates we understand our business. If they're ont thought through, they're worse than useless as they divert attention from doing business.

Specific â€“ Objectives should specify what they want to achieve.
Measurable â€“ You should be able to measure whether you are meeting the objectives or not.
Achievable - Are the objectives you set, achievable and attainable?
Realistic â€“ Can you realistically achieve the objectives with the resources you have?
Time â€“ When do you want to achieve the set objectives?

Specific â€“ Objectives should specify what they want to achieve.
Measurable â€“ You should be able to measure whether you are meeting the objectives or not.
Achievable - Are the objectives you set, achievable and attainable?
Realistic â€“ Can you realistically achieve the objectives with the resources you have?
Time â€“ When do you want to achieve the set objectives?

Click to expand...

Oh God! I feel like I'm back in O4, Dartmouth getting a pre-ABLE Leadership Lecture!

I'm not experienced in this area, but here are my feelings on KPIs and Targets:

In a previous job we had the scorecards and KPIs, did they help? No not at all, because although the staff were told to improve KPIs, no-one actually looked at why we were not achieving them. Ideas that were had by the lower staff were seemingly ignored without even examining their potential for improving the business. Wondering why this company has such a high staff turnover and is consistently failing to meet customer service expectations.

I could not stand bland aims that give no direction and just serve to further alienate the staff from the management of the company, or indeed their command structure.